Allowed

Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Srinivasulu

DRT18 Oct 2024OA/362/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by Yes Bank Ltd to recoverRs. 35,65,361.81 plus future interest from two defendants who remained absent. The perusedesvidence proved loan dues, securing the claim through hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 35,65,361.81 with future interest and other costs; bank entitled to recover from hypothecated assets.

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Srinivasulu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THEl8th DAY OF OCTOBER'2024}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE' B'9roI''L'LB' (Hons')' M'A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATION No: 362 OF 2023}

¶4

M/s.YES^{Bank Ltd',} 2io Floor,^{H.No.1-8-387,} Aoravanshi^{Plaza, HUDA Lane,} s]P-noaO,^{Secunderabad-500003'} .....APPlicant. Rep. bY^{its AuthorizedSignatorY'}

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr.V,Srinivasulu,^{S/o.V'Chennaiah,} Aged about^{35 Years, Occ: Business'} R7o.H.No.3-23l1,^Nasrullabad, Jadcharla,^{Mahabubnagar- 509301'}

¶7

Mrs.V. Saritha,^{W/o.V.Srinivasulu,} Aged about^{30 Years, Occ: Housewife,} R7o.H.No.3-2311,^Nasrullabad, ladcharla,^{Mahabubnagar- 509301'}

¶8

... Defendants

¶9

: M/s.M.Srinivas^ReddY Counsel^{for the APP|icant}

¶10

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

:: ORDER::

¶12

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of^{Rs.35,65,361.81psfrom the defendantsjointly and} severally with^{future interest@ 18o/o p'a' comoounded with} ffi,t\

¶13

¶14

oA.NO.362/2023

¶15

monthly rests from 10.01.2023 till the date oF realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶16

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex_parte on 27.06.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined D.Shyam Kumar Reddy, Legal Manager, as AW_1 and marked 06 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06.

¶18

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be

¶19

passed through merits. perused the material placed on reco rd.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶21

Whether the Appticant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assefsz

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupred with the recitars in the documents viz., Exs. A. 1 to 4.06 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Appllcant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the oA craim to the Appricant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.362/2023 is

¶24

allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of ffitv\

¶26

oA.NO.362/2023

¶27

Rs.35,65,361.81ps with future interest @ 12.5o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶29

iii ) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

ar. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th Day of October, 2024).

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Srinivasulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Srinivasulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohanan U versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Ramilaben

Ms Nishi Agency versus Bank of Baroda

Yes Bank Ltd., versus M/S Srinivasa Transport

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mohd Afzaluddin Qureshi

Sri Rama Murthy and Another versus Iifl Home Finance Limited